Barragan v. Off Cuts, LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-03357-PAE-OTW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Barragan v. Off Cuts, Judge Engelmayer dismissed three plaintiffs’ remaining claims with prejudice after they failed to pursue the case.
Rodolfo Hernandez Mora, Rosibel Solorzano Rojas, and Valentin Miranda were affected by the dismissal with prejudice. The defendants obtained dismissal of the remaining action, while the earlier judgment for Lucio Barragan, Nemecio Calderon, Luis Hernandez, and Frankie Gil was not the subject of this ruling.
What happened
In Barragan v. Off Cuts, LLC, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the claims of Rodolfo Hernandez Mora, Rosibel Solorzano Rojas, and Valentin Miranda because they had not pursued the case. The motion was unopposed. The court had previously entered judgment for four other plaintiffs after a settlement process.
The three remaining plaintiffs did not attend the mediation, did not respond to the dismissal motion, and had not otherwise taken action for nearly a year. Their counsel also reported that the plaintiffs were no longer in contact with counsel. The court found that all five factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute favored ending the case.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the action for failure to prosecute with prejudice. He directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Barragan v. Off Cuts, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03357-PAE-OTW
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs filed the action in April 2020. The court later referred the case for pretrial supervision and mediation. In August 2021, the court entered judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Lucio Barragan, Nemecio Calderon, Luis Hernandez, and Frankie Gil after those plaintiffs resolved their part of the case. The remaining plaintiffs were Rodolfo Hernandez Mora, Rosibel Solorzano Rojas, and Valentin Miranda.
The defendants moved to dismiss the remaining plaintiffs’ claims for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to take the steps needed to move a case forward. The motion was unopposed. According to the motion, the remaining plaintiffs did not attend the mediation that led to the judgment for the other plaintiffs, and their counsel was no longer in contact with them. The remaining plaintiffs also did not respond to the motion.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. The court considered five factors: the length of the delay, whether the plaintiffs had notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the defendants, the balance between court congestion and the plaintiffs’ opportunity to have their claims heard, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective.
The court found that all five factors supported dismissal. The remaining plaintiffs had taken no action since at least June 23, 2021, and had not responded to the defendants’ motion filed in October 2021. They received notice through the defendants’ earlier letter, the court’s order setting a deadline for responses, and the dismissal motion itself. The court also found that further delay would prejudice the defendants by prolonging litigation they had sought to resolve through mediation. Finally, the court concluded that dismissal was appropriate because the remaining plaintiffs had shown no apparent interest in pursuing their claims.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss and dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. The court expressly stated that the dismissal was with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.